Neoatheist's Intro

Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Neoatheist's Intro

Hello everyone. My name is Phillip and I am a self described New Atheist and Secular Humanist. I firmly believe in the benefits of promoting rational thought and educating people on what exactly atheism is. There is enough misinformation out there. Some of you may know me from atheistforums.com I plan to remain a presence there and perhaps contribute to the dicussions here as well. Pleased to meet you all.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.Just so we know

Welcome.

Just so we know you're not misinformed, care to tell us "what exactly atheism is"?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Just so we know

EXC wrote:

Just so we know you're not misinformed, care to tell us "what exactly atheism is"?

Well, I think that the general consensus is that atheism is nothing more and nothing less than 'a lack of belief in deities'. I knew that someone would call me out on that. Did I pass? Eye-wink

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Neoatheist wrote:EXC

Neoatheist wrote:

EXC wrote:

Just so we know you're not misinformed, care to tell us "what exactly atheism is"?

Well, I think that the general consensus is that atheism is nothing more and nothing less than 'a lack of belief in deities'. I knew that someone would call me out on that. Did I pass? Eye-wink

I like the atheist = NOT a fucking theist, definition, works better with theists.  A theist would be defined as someone that believes in at least one deity.  The distinction being that if a logical, empirically provable deity is presented, I would be inclined to believe.  Of course that would automatically make you a satanist and abortothon organizer.  Bring your own wire coat hanger Smiling

Welcome to the forum my satanist, abortathon organizer brethren. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Well just for the sake of

Well just for the sake of argument, a theist is someone that believes in a personal god, so one could be a deist and not be a theist while also not be an atheist. That definition leaves something to be desired. I have learned that if there is one thing that you need when debating theists, it's clear and concise definitions.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.You

Welcome to the forum.

You pass.

Neoatheist wrote:
Well just for the sake of argument, a theist is someone that believes in a personal god, so one could be a deist and not be a theist while also not be an atheist. That definition leaves something to be desired. I have learned that if there is one thing that you need when debating theists, it's clear and concise definitions.

Hmmm, I've always defined deists as theists too. I see theism and atheism as a dichotomy, and deists believe in something that they call "god," so they are theists.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum.

You pass.

Neoatheist wrote:
Well just for the sake of argument, a theist is someone that believes in a personal god, so one could be a deist and not be a theist while also not be an atheist. That definition leaves something to be desired. I have learned that if there is one thing that you need when debating theists, it's clear and concise definitions.

Hmmm, I've always defined deists as theists too. I see theism and atheism as a dichotomy, and deists believe in something that they call "god," so they are theists.

 

ditto what butter said Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Deism is nothing more than

Deism is nothing more than an easy "answer".


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The truth is out there,

 

 

Neo...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
You know how these things

You know how these things are. It depends on who you ask or which dictionary you choose to consult. It's much the same way atheism is defined differently everywhere you look. And now we have terms like strong, weak, agnostic, and gnostic that all exist for the sole purpose of clearing up some of that confusion. I don't think that deism could exist under the category of theism as theism always refers to belief in a personal god, while deism never does. It's the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther. Thomas Jefferson was a deist while Martin Luther was a theist. The more pertinent and frustrating thing for anybody that debates with theists is that they almost always revert to the deist position for the majority of the debate and don't realize the incredible leap of faith that it takes to go from that to "Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins."

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Neoatheist wrote:Well just

 

Neoatheist wrote:
Well just for the sake of argument, a theist is someone that believes in a personal god, so one could be a deist and not be a theist while also not be an atheist. That definition leaves something to be desired. I have learned that if there is one thing that you need when debating theists, it's clear and concise definitions.

 

Well, you pass my test.

 

However, I really don't much care for the whole idea of coming up with categories where you can be in some nice and comfortable fence sitting land.

 

Dawkins has been promoting a “scale of belief” for many years which has seven positions. Well, that is fine enough in that it allows people to make a distinction between different levels of what each word means. So 1, 2 and 3 are hard core literalistic, medium core believers and “nice theists”. The opposite for 8, 7 and 6. the only thing is that by allowing a position #5, it is possible to not take a side at all.

 

Personally, I would make a similar scale but with eight levels of belief. Done that way, there is no fence sitting option. One could get close by taking up either position 4 or 5 but one would still have to pick one end of the scale or the other.

 

Personally, I consider myself to be at the far end of any scale that one can come up with. In all honesty, nihilism is the default option for all of this. If you can't provide direct empirical evidence which can be discussed, then there is no point in positing that some being is involved in anything at all.

 

This holds true not only for gods but also for the other silly belief systems such as aliens coming to earth a long time ago and messing with our DNA.

 

The fact is that we have plenty of DNA databased around the world for many species on every level and as far as we can see, there is a fairly regular progression from one form to another. If there had been a “great intervention” at any point in our past (and lasting less than a few thousand generations), then there would be evidence of sudden changes. Even if the aliens had been trying to minimize what they did, they would still have inadvertently carved their initials in our DNA.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Neoatheist wrote:EXC

Neoatheist wrote:

EXC wrote:

Just so we know you're not misinformed, care to tell us "what exactly atheism is"?

Well, I think that the general consensus is that atheism is nothing more and nothing less than 'a lack of belief in deities'. I knew that someone would call me out on that. Did I pass? Eye-wink

Yes.  Welcome aboard.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Personally I find the

Personally I find the "aliens did it" argument to be no more intellectually honest or stimulating than "god did it". In effect, all they do is kick the can down the road and neither of them have any real empirical evidence to back them up. The scientific method starts with evidence and formulates a hypothesis around that. IDers start with a preconceived hypothesis and form the evidence around that. It's an ass-backwards approach that ends predictably right where it starts.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
What's up Sapient? I believe

What's up Sapient? I believe we met once at AF. I was actually defending you all in a thread about RRS.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Neoatheist wrote:What's up

Neoatheist wrote:

What's up Sapient? I believe we met once at AF. I was actually defending you all in a thread about RRS.

Hey man... I don't recall the particulars but I appreciate it.  Sounds like you are prone to reside on the side of righteousness.  :-D

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Neo, great to see you

Hey, Neo, great to see you here!

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Wow, another familiar face.

Wow, another familiar face. Great to see you too Bob.